Chess Forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| ccmcacollister 12/12/2004 22:43:34 [ report this post ] |
 Subject: Knight(s) vs Bishop(s)Message: Which is better; or at least which do YOU perform better with generally ... 2 Knights? or 2 Bishops ? Or a Knight and a Bishop ? One Knight or One Bishop? (also:Has anyone played a game where 2 Bishops have dominated a Rook + Knight?) (or 2 Knights have dominated vs a Rook + Bishop?) Personally, I find that my "2-Bishops" advantage is much more effective when come into early or expectedly based upon the opening variation, and have time and inclination to strive towards a Bishop advantage type position {more open one with fluid or no center, and multiple pawns both wings.). But when I come into the Pair simply in the course of my opponent deciding to break up his own pair .... they usually end up harder to use. Perhaps this is natural tho, in that maybe opponents only want to yield that advantage in positions where it is not so critical :) I just don't seem to be very good at using a Knight pair in tandem operation and cooperation however. But know they can be by others who plop them about like magic. (EG bogg :) So it would be nice to see some representative games of this use of 2 Knights. As well as some of the 2 Bishops. Regards, Craig |
| ccmcacollister 12/13/2004 00:05:13 [ report this post ] | The Bishop pair ...(another thing I like about it) Message: Deployed classically such as on Be7 and Be6 do have a strength for file control in the middle game that I dont feel Knights can match since they are subject to pins, pawn pushes and exchange much more when classically deployed on N-B3 squares it seems to me. The N's can't be counted upon as well to remain and guard against egress of enemy rooks via an open file. Whereas those e7 and e6 Bishops can completely defend the d-file for instance, if opened. And when that is possible it is often better to do so, than using your own Rooks to face off the opp's Rooks there. Where he could exchange them off at will. So it is very nice when naturally placed Bishops like that can guard the file access and free up one's Rooks to play behind Lever Pawns or others that will be pushed, or removed to open that other file later. ** [Which is a reason we hear it said "don't release the pawn(or center) "tension" prematurely. Because files that are opened later usually present the opp more problems. Because (a) You have your Rooks behind them ready to go, perhaps even doubled there to penetrate when the pawn trade does open the file. And (b) while the tension still holds, the opponent will usually have less manuevering room to bring his pieces to guard the future infiltration squares, or targets upon that file.] }8-) |
| ecfchamps2002 12/13/2004 07:14:54 [ report this post ] | Call me strange... Message: ...But I prefer Knights anyday. I don't know what it is. I was lying in bed last night thinking about it actually; I cannot stand Bishops. I'm always losing a piece to a nasty Bishop pin. My Bishops are always doing nothing but getting in my own way. Doesn't matter if the position is open, closed, winning, or losing, I prefer the trusty Knight. It's like a brother to me. |
| doctor_knight 12/13/2004 15:47:15 [ report this post ] | Message: Look at my name. Actually, I really consider them more or less equal. As with most things, it just depends on the position. Knights are invalueble for supporting your position because they can defend an attacked piece without the attacked piece being pinned to the knight (many other advantages such as defending a position from behind the frontlines). Knights are also (arguably) the most effective piece to place on an outpost (this also depends on the position, but this is generally the case) Bishops are more penetrating than knights and can really slow down the enemy postion with pins (they can also attack the opposite corner of the board!). They are very useful for putting pressure on an enemy's position (expecially the king). Generally, it depends on the position. You should not really worry about which one is better, rather, you need to be balanced with both of them. If you have problems with Bishops, then only use Bishops for a while until you can use them effectively. Strengthen your weaknesses, don't evade them. I know that as I have gotten better, I grown to like both equally. It's really just a matter of what the position demands. |
| wulebgr 12/13/2004 18:43:05 [ report this post ] | I recall two games Message: on another server against the same opponent: in one my bishop dominated his knight; in the other my knight proved superior to his bishop. The bishop prevailed in an open position; the knight's dominance became clear with the center pawns locked. Here's one of those games: www.angelfire.com/poetry/wulebgr/cabaerchen.htm You could also look at the book, Bishop versus Knight: the Verdict by Steve Meyer |
| migchess20 12/14/2004 06:36:23 [ report this post ] | Cual es mejor? Message: Mi opinion es la siguiente: 1. En cualquier juego es mejor jugar con el par de alfiles, comparado con el par de caballos. 2. En posiciones demasiadas cerradas es ventajoso utilizar los caballos. 3. la mayoria de jugadores busca al inicio quitar al menos un alfil del bando contrario. 4. Es importante observar cual es el alfil malo y el alfil bueno durante una partida. 5. En finales son mejores los alfiles que los caballos en posiciones abiertas. 6. En finales son mejores los caballos que los alfiles si la posicion es cerrada. Muchos Saludos |
| migchess20 12/14/2004 06:37:10 [ report this post ] | Cual es mejor? Message: Mi opinion es la siguiente: 1. En cualquier juego es mejor jugar con el par de alfiles, comparado con el par de caballos. 2. En posiciones demasiadas cerradas es ventajoso utilizar los caballos. 3. la mayoria de jugadores busca al inicio quitar al menos un alfil del bando contrario. 4. Es importante observar cual es el alfil malo y el alfil bueno durante una partida. 5. En finales son mejores los alfiles que los caballos en posiciones abiertas. 6. En finales son mejores los caballos que los alfiles si la posicion es cerrada. Muchos Saludos |
| neelix 12/15/2004 02:28:35 [ report this post ] | Caballos vs alfiles Message: My spanish is not that good, but 1 and 2 translate, I think, to 1. In open positions, the bishop pair is preferred above the knights. 2. In closed positions, the knights can be used better. Anyone to translate the rest, pls? |
| pandemona 12/15/2004 08:08:33 [ report this post ] | Babelfish would say that: Message: 3. mayoria of players looks for the beginning to clear at least a bishop of the opposite side. [look to take your opponent's bishop in the opening?] 4. It is important to observe as it is the bad bishop and the good bishop during a game. [be aware of good and bad bishops] 5. In end the bishops are better than the horses in open positions. 6. In end the horses are better than the bishops if the position is closed. |
| neelix 12/17/2004 05:12:44 [ report this post ] | Thanks Message: Clear translation, although Babelfish cannot really speak chessy English. |
| chimane 12/17/2004 18:00:34 [ report this post ] | A Human translation Message: My opinion is this: 1. In any game, it is better to play with a pair of bishops, rather than a pair of knights. 2. In extremely closed situations, it is more advantageous to use knights. 3. The majority of players look to at least take one opposing bishop at the beginning of the game. 4. during a game, it is important to observe which is the dangerous and not dangerous bishop. 5.In the end, bishops are better than knights in open positions. 6. In the end, knights are better than bishops in closed positions. |
| jjw109 12/17/2004 19:56:09 [ report this post ] | Good, recent example of two knights Message: Here's a good example of two knights in the Nakamura-Karjakin match. [Event "Duelo de Jovenes"] [Site "Cuernavaca"] [Date "2004.12.14"] [Round "6"] [White "Karjakin, Sergey"] [Black "Nakamura, Hikaru"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B90"] [WhiteElo "2576"] [BlackElo "2620"] [PlyCount "114"] [EventDate "2004.12.09"] [EventRounds "6"] [EventCountry "MEX"] [SourceDate "2004.12.10"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 b5 8. g4 b4 9. Nce2 h6 10. c4 Nbd7 11. Qd2 Qc7 12. Rc1 Nc5 13. Bg2 g6 14. Ng3 e5 15. Nde2 Be6 16. b3 a5 17. h4 a4 18. Rb1 Nfd7 19. O-O Rb8 20. Rfc1 Be7 21. h5 g5 22. Bf2 axb3 23. axb3 O-O 24. Nf1 Ra8 25. Ne3 Rfc8 26. Ng3 Bf8 27. Bf1 Rcb8 28. Rc2 Ra3 29. Rcb2 Qa5 30. Ngf5 Bxf5 31. Nxf5 Ne6 32. Nxd6 Ndc5 33. Nb5 Rd8 34. Qc2 Ra1 35. Qc1 Rxb1 36. Qxb1 Rd7 37. Be3 Qd8 38. Rf2 Nf4 39. Qc2 Rd1 40. Rd2 Rxd2 41. Qxd2 Qxd2 42. Bxd2 Nxb3 43. Be3 Bc5 44. Kf2 Kf8 45. Bxc5+ Nxc5 46. Ke3 Nfe6 47. Be2 Ke7 48. Bd1 Kd7 49. Bc2 Nc7 50. Kd2 Kc6 51. Na7+ Kb7 52. Nb5 Nxb5 53. cxb5 Kb6 54. Bd1 Kxb5 55. Be2+ Ka4 56. Bc4 f6 57. Kc2 Ka3 0-1 See recent posting on chessbase.com |
Post a reply to this message: |
